[3.5] Chain-a-Ray?

[Keld Denar]

Can you apply Chain Spell Metamagic (CArcane pg 76) to a ray? The wording from Chain Spell says:

Benefit: Any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch can be chained so as to affect that primary target normally, then arc to a number of secondary targets equal to your caster level (max 20). <snip>

Then, looking at a sample ray:

Ray of Enfeeblement
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1.

So...its worth noting that while Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't have a Target: XXX line, it does specify in the body that it does strike a target. I've seen this mentioned in the past, but am not aware of a consensus either way. Is there a FAQ ruling somewhere?

So...what do people think? Is it possible to Chain a Ray of Enfeeblement?

[RTGoodman]

I don't believe it would work. The system makes a concrete distinction between spells with Targets, those that create an Effect, those that affect an Area, and those that have a Line of Effect.

Aiming A Spell

You must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect or where the effect is to originate, depending on the type of spell. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell’s target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.

I think the intention (and the RAW) is that the spell has to have a "Target: One Creature" line or similar to be legal for Chain Spell.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Also from the entry on aiming a spell:

Ray

Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at.

If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.

If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.

According to that, both the RAW and RAI don't consider Rays to be targeted spells. Otherwise, you could not use a ray against a creature that you do not have line of sight to, which is clearly not the case.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I don't see why not, although Enfeeblement is a clever one to use. Because it applies a penalty rather than causing stat damage, the effect is not halved on secondary targets.

However, I still think that it would be better paired with Enervation (which applies negative levels, rather than doing damage, so secondary targets would take full effect as well).

[Yuki Akuma]

A spell that produces an effect that hits a target is not the same thing as a spell which has a target.

The spell creates the ray, which you then direct by pointing or something. The ray isn't a spell - it's a magical effect created by a spell.

[Dacia Brabant]

Doesn't Chain Spell stack with Reach Spell? If it does then I would say yes, rays should be chainable since they're ranged touch attacks just like Reach Spells are.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Doesn't Chain Spell stack with Reach Spell? If it does then I would say yes, rays should be chainable since they're ranged touch attacks just like Reach Spells are.

The debate on Chain + Reach isn't about Reach making the range greater than Touch and therefore Chain-able. The debate is that because the BASE spell says Touch, it doesn't matter if Reach extends the range and thus makes it chainable, but the fact that it doesn't alter the original spell description, and all prerequisites for metamagic feats have to be met BEFORE any metamagic alteration considerations.

Yea, it's a real headache.

[Dacia Brabant]

The debate on Chain + Reach isn't about Reach making the range greater than Touch and therefore Chain-able. The debate is that because the BASE spell says Touch, it doesn't matter if Reach extends the range and thus makes it chainable, but the fact that it doesn't alter the original spell description, and all prerequisites for metamagic feats have to be met BEFORE any metamagic alteration considerations.

Yea, it's a real headache.

Well all right, I guess that is a different argument than Chain + Reach, but I thought that all that mattered for Chaining was if the spell had a range greater than touch and was single-target only. Rays only affect the one target that they hit and their range is greater than touch, and they can only affect something if it's targetable for the caster. (Edit: which I see you weren't arguing against so this point isn't directed at you specifically. )

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Reach Spell + Touch Spell + Chain Spell works because a touch spell has Range: Touch, Target: Creature Touched. It has a 'target' entry, unlike a Ray which does not. A ray spell is not a targeted spell, it is a spell that creates an effect, and is thus not eligible to be modified by Chain Spell.

[ZeroNumerous]

Split Ray.

Chain'd a ray.
For 1 less spell level no less!

[woodenbandman]

I like to think that it does work, based on the way that a ray is defined. Rays specify a single target by definition.

"All ray attacks require the attacker to make a successful ranged touch attack against the target. Rays have varying ranges, which are simple maximums. A ray’s attack roll never takes a range penalty. Even if a ray hits, it usually allows the target to make a saving throw (Fortitude or Will). Rays never allow a Reflex saving throw, but if a character’s Dexterity bonus to AC is high, it might be hard to hit her with the ray in the first place. "

True, there is no target entry, but by being a ray, the spell specifies a single target.

[Keld Denar]

True, there is no target entry, but by being a ray, the spell specifies a single target.

Except when it doesn't. Scorching Ray is a volley attack, giving you 1-3 rays that can target 1-3 foes as long as they are close enough together.

I'm still on the fence about it...I can really see both sides.

[Elminster1]

All my past games consider Ray attacks as targeted, thus legal canidates for the Chain spell feat. For a ranged touch to hit, you must specify a target, chain requires you to have a target greater than touch, so it works. Meaning you can Chain Enervation, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Stupidity (good for laughs), and any touch spell augmented by the Reach spell feat is a legal canidate.

[Lycanthromancer]

What's really fun is a Chained dispel magic (targeted) followed by a Split Ray'd, Chained, Empowered disintegrate.

[Keld Denar]

Change of thought, new questions!

So...if you shoot a Scorching Ray, its considered a "Volley" attack, defined in the Weaponlike Spells section of Complete Arcane. That means you only get precision based damage on 1 hit, like...if you had Sneak Attack.

Split Ray and Chain spell specifically modify a spell, increasing the number of effects. That would mean that Split Ray'd and Chain Spelled rays would also be considered "Volley" style attacks.

The question is:

Twin Spell duplicates the WHOLE spell. That means you have 2 seperate spells being cast at the same time.

Would this be a volley attack as well? I'm thinkin no, but I'd like some inputs!

[Keld Denar]

Bumpie Le Bump!

Anyone got an answer to the above question?